A blog of things I find interesting. Mostly revolving around unions, workers rights, politics, and too much of my amateur photography. I am a Michigan labor union staffer, MSU alum,and a politics junkie.

Posts Tagged: voting

The New Republic: Stop Talking About the ‘Catholic Vote’! It Doesn’t Exist

@CatholicDems  - The idea that we Catholics all vote the same way is almost some old school backwards thought.  Some would have you believe that the Pope sends us all a brain message and we all vote one way.  The article talks about there being a time when Catholics voted in a mostly conservative democratic block way back when, but now we’re just as divided as the general populace.  On most issues, Catholics are only a few percentages points different than the rest of the country, if not exactly the same.

It’s not easy being a left winger and Catholic (as well as a Knight of Columbus member).  The leaders of the Church and various Catholic groups seem to think that we all think the same way (or should).  The hierarchies of both the Church in the US and the KofC seem hell bent on picking a fight with Obama over a non issue (considering 28 state already have laws that mandate that religious affiliated institutions provide contraceptives in their insurance plans), when they should be focusing on the deteriorating conditions of the American working class, poverty in America, and the crippling amounts of student loans debts that young people face today (myself included).  Despite the leaders of the Church and various Catholic groups acting as if they speak for all Catholics, (and that if you disagree with them, you are wrong) I do take solace in the fact that there are many Catholics who have a different view than our conservative leadership are are still great members of the Church such as the Catholic Democrats (who’s twitter I included in the beginning), Catholics United, Catholics for Choice, Knights for Obama (I’ve seen many a Knight express disappointment online with regard to the KofC leadership and their spending of 1.4 million dollars on prop 8 in California, amongst other things), etc.  If you’re a liberal, progressive, or left wing Catholic, you’re not alone :)

http://www.catholicdemocrats.org/

http://www.catholics-united.org/

http://www.catholicdemocrats.org/KnightsforObama1.php

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/

http://www.catholicsinalliance.org/

http://www.catholiclabor.org/home.htm

http://www.catholicsforobama.blogspot.com/

I think that’s all the progressive Catholic links I have for now.

Also, another interesting read: http://open.salon.com/blog/rw005g/2010/05/20/confessions_of_a_left-wing_roman_catholic

—————

By: Ed Kilgore

When the Obama administration announced last month that religiously-affiliated institutions would be required to provide health plans covering contraception, there was widespread talk that a wedge issue was emerging. Several prominent Catholic liberals were quick to point out that Obama would lose the Catholic vote and seriously damage his re-election prospects. But as Republican politicians gleefully piled on, the evidence for such a dire development—and indeed, for the continued existence of anything you could describe as a “Catholic vote”—has diminished almost daily.

Of course, the White House responded to the Catholic Bishops’ furor with a deft maneuver that changed the political dynamics of the issue, offering a compromise that allowed the cost of contraception coverage to be borne by insurance companies, not the religiously-affiliated institutions themselves. This step won immediate praise from the leadership of the Catholic Health Association, Catholic Charities, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. But the split among Catholic elites simply reinforced the more fundamental reality: American Catholics are hardly monolithic, even on issues supposedly touching on the Church’s authority and teachings.

Polling of Americans on the contraception mandate controversy has produced significantly varying results, often depending on when the poll was taken and question wording and order. But no survey has shown a significant difference between Catholics and other voters on this issue. (John Sides found some evidence of a drop in approval ratings for Obama among highly-observant and conservative Catholics, but conceded that these are largely already Obama opponents.) Among the many polls, the most credible is perhaps a Democracy Corps survey that formulates the positions of the administration and of the Bishops in their own words. The results show that Catholics support the administration’s position by a 49-42 margin—barely distinguishable from the full pool of respondents, who support the administration’s position by a 49-43 margin.

This should come as no particular surprise to anyone familiar with the history of U.S. Catholic lay attitudes on issues where the Church hierarchy has taken strong positions. The most thorough recent research on public opinion involving abortion and same-sex marriage—issues where the Catholic Church has clear, unambiguous positions that are frequently communicated to the laity via channels ranging from papal encyclicals to the parish pulpit—comes from the Public Religion Research Institute, which did a major survey examining the views of Americans of differing confessional backgrounds in June of last year. At that time, 56 percent of all Americans and 54 percent of Catholics indicated they thought abortions should be legal in all or most circumstances. Only 29 percent of white evangelical Protestants, however, support legalized abortion—another indication that the anti-choice base in American politics is now more Protestant than Catholic.

To be sure, the same survey shows slightly stronger personal disapproval of abortion on moral grounds among Catholics than among the population as a whole. That attitude, however, is heavily concentrated among Latino Catholics. Forty-two percent of white Catholics consider abortion “morally acceptable,” compared to 40 percent of all Americans, while only 17% of Latino Catholics say the same. There is hardly a consenus Catholic position, even on personal attitudes towards abortion.

On same-sex marriage, again, Catholics are more likely to agree with other Americans than with their own leadership. An October 2010 Pew survey showed 46 percent of Catholics favoring legalization of same-sex marriage, as compared to 42 percent of all Americans. The hardcore resistance to gay marriage, on the other hand, is among white evangelicals (who oppose it by a 20-74 margin) and to some extent black Protestants (who oppose it by a 28-62 margin).

Conservatives often argue that support for the hierarchy’s positions is much higher among “real Catholics”—meaning those who attend Mass weekly. That’s true, but it’s not a phenomenon particular to Catholics. According to the PRRI survey, for example, support for legalized abortion varies inversely according to frequency of worship service attendance among evangelical and mainline Protestants, as well as among Catholics. Moreover, Catholics who disagree with the Church’s position on hot-button issues do not seem to be suffering from any misinformation about Church teachings (72 percent of white Catholics say they’ve heard about abortion from the pulpit) or from a bad conscience about their disagreements. Again according to PRRI, 68 percent of Catholics think you can still be a “good Catholic” while disagreeing with Church teachings on abortion, and 74 percent say the same about same-sex marriage.

The more you look at the numbers, the idea that there is some identifiable Catholic vote in America, ready to be mobilized, begins to fade towards irrelevance. In the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential elections, Catholics voted within a couple of percentage points of the electorate as a whole. It’s notable that both the Democratic vice president and the Republican Speaker of the House are Catholics—and that few Americans are likely aware of that fact.

This was not always the case, of course. From the days of Andrew Jackson to JFK, Catholic voters were considered a mainstay of the Democratic Party coalition. Irish and German Catholics were at home in the conservative Democratic party of the nineteenth century, and were supplemented by southern Europeans as the New Deal Coalition developed in the twentieth. While the Catholic attachment to the Democratic Party has persisted to a steadily diminishing extent in state and local elections, the disproportionate pro-Democratic “Catholic vote” at the presidential level abruptly ended in 1972 and has never returned.

To a large extent, that shift has simply reflected the broader ideological polarization of the two parties, which demolished traditional ethnic loyalties. Moreover, the upward mobility and suburbanization of previously urban white Catholics communities has naturally made them more susceptible to Republican economic and cultural appeals, a trend that among Catholics as a whole has been partially offset by the influx of Democratic-leaning Hispanics.  

The idea that Catholics no longer behave self-consciously as “Catholics” on hot-button issues reflects the broader reality that they have become hard to distinguish from other Americans in their political behavior. And so whatever happens between the White House and the Bishops, it’s not likely to change the reality that the “Catholic vote” looks just like America. 

Ed Kilgore is a special correspondent for The New Republic, a blogger for The Washington Monthly, and managing editor of The Democratic Strategist.

Text

I hope Occupy Wall Street is the start of something.  At the very least some sort of change.  Everyone knows we need it.  Not just a simple law or jobs bill, a real change to how capitalism in the US functions.  Real consumer protections, a regulated banking and finance system, upholding workers rights, better access to healthcare (*cough* Single Payer *cough*), a fair and just tax policy, quality public education for all, lowering the cost of higher education, better public transit, real environmental regulation, upholding the rights of women, treating immigrants like people, improving democracy by taking out the barriers that bar many from voting, etc., etc. 

However, it could be bigger.  I had a thought.  What if the Occupy Wall Street stays strong for the long run.  What if it stays and stays through next year and up to the elections with no real economic or political changes (you really think the republicans will budge even if Anonymous shuts down their internets?).  Now take a look at a several Republican controlled states that are dismantling voting rights.  You need a valid drivers license to vote, shortened absentee voting/early voting, ending early voting, Colorado even got rid of the right of troops overseas to absentee vote.  What if millions who would have voted for Obama are denied at the polls?  What if he loses not because of his shortcomings, but because the Republicans dismantled democracy state by state?  What if people that already feel alienated and disenfranchised finally start to do something about it.  Occupy Wall Street swells, our fragile economy is rocked by European Union economies collapsing or even EU governments falling to potential revolutions… and then it happens.  The straw that breaks the camels back.  It could be a number of things the new Republican president could do to set it off.  A new war, another tax cut for the rich, or maybe even a 2nd Tea Party debt ceiling fight that puts the US economy into free fall.  The protest start to turn ugly after brutal clashes with law enforcement.  Things come to a head after a member of law enforcement opens fire killing multiple protesters.  Rioting, looting, chaos.  The pent up anger of a cornered working class spills out into the streets.  Eventually law enforcement can no longer (or won’t) keep people under their heel and the revolution begins.  Politicians either flee or give up their positions as the people attempt to take back their government, and we make a new world from the ashes of the old.

Just a thought.

Will this actually happen?  Doubtful.  Could it? Potentially.  All I know is that somethings gotta give, or you can say goodbye to the America we all used to know and the America we all want.

"Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote?

Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery.

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country - which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote."

-

Conservative columnist Matthew Vadum, in his column “Registering the Poor to Vote is Un-American” for The American Thinker.

I literally do not know what to say this, other than the subtlety used in the past by folks like Vadum is dead. They do not want those in poverty to vote for fear their rich cronies will no longer be able to buy political clout. The richest 1% have 1% of the vote. 99% of the vote belongs to those outside of the top income brackets.

Never fear, Mr. Vadum. Citizens United v. FEC has your back. I’ll tell you what’s un-American: Decrying the empowerment of the impoverished via the last vestiges of the democratic process we have left in this country. To insist that a person is defined by what one owns versus who one is - that’s profoundly un-American.

You sir, are attempting to establish a new aristocracy in this country, a pseudo-royalty if you will. I believe the Founding Fathers might have a bigger problem with that than with the poor voting.

(via cognitivedissonance)

So good.

(via tinfoilandtea)

Source: americanthinker.com